K-4 is a P51 Killer

[Solty]

Exactly Echo. And the only thing that would make it a bit more fair in this regard is to give P-51D it's 44-1 fuel and 75'hg because it is very well documented and follows the rule of creating simulation based on real life data. I hope that this "feature" will be available sooner than later to us, especially with 25lbs Spitfire coming down the way. Sith said some time ago that it is planned, I just wish we could have it now :P. But this change will stop this thread and claims that K4 is the P51 killer, because they will be fighting on equal terms.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Solty

[Echo38]

I myself am uneasy about the "arms race" thing and feel that, rather than constantly upping boosts to try to match one or the other, it would be be far more ideal if we had something like a 109G-6 to match our factory-boost P-51D, instead. At the altitudes at which multiplayer battles occur, a factory P-51D should be a fairly good match for an ideal 109G-6; the former having speed and dive, and the latter having climb and turn.

 

However, that's moot; the cat's already out of the bag, and so I have a difficult time seeing any other way of correcting the problem of the 109K being overly dominant, than to give the P-51 one of its historical mid-range WEP ratings. The highest ratings would probably be overkill, especially at higher altitudes (seeing as how our 109K doesn't have its highest rating, either); there's no reason to jump from extreme to extreme.

 

The good news is that ED has, as you mentioned, several historically-common WEP ratings for the P-51D to work with, giving a number of options for picking a good match, and IIRC Yo-Yo did mention a possibility that such might be incorporated into the sim at some point. In reality, the two fighters were fairly well-matched against each other, on average, when there was a good pilot in the seat of each. It is my earnest hope that this becomes the case in the sim, as well, and ED has the means to do so. It is now, for us, a matter of waiting & hoping that they can allocate the resources to implement it.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Echo38

[Solty]

The difference is, if you want to make a G6, you need to make a new model from scratch. So 3D model and all system modelling has to be recreated. For 44-1 fuel you just have to change engine settings and no additonal work and just make a script to choose between different fuel types. Done.

 

Also, we are not going to push the boost to 81'hg as it was the known British setting for Mustang MK IV (P51D) but only the allowed by USAAF 75'hg from aprill 1944. So it is not the highest boost, and it is well documented. On the note 109 G6 is my favourtie because of those buns on the nose :3

 

I would love to see P-51B vs Bf109G6 in the future though, so both planes can be added, and they are much better for each other :P

 

PS: BTW there is a way to simulate G6 with K4, just remove MW50 and let it be at standard ata level of 1.45 and not a 1.8 (K4 is heavier but with MW50 tank removed or at least empty that weight would go down and K4 is more clean aerodynamically so that makes up for the weight). But nobody would do that, because who wants to fly a worse plane? :D

 

I myself am uneasy about the "arms race" thing and feel that, rather than constantly upping boosts to try to match one or the other, it would be be far more ideal if we had something like a 109G-6 to match our factory-boost P-51D, instead. At the altitudes at which multiplayer battles occur, a factory P-51D should be a fairly good match for an ideal 109G-6; the former having speed and dive, and the latter having climb and turn.

 

However, that's moot; the cat's already out of the bag, and so I have a difficult time seeing any other way of correcting the problem of the 109K from being overly dominant, than to give the P-51 one of its historical mid-range WEP ratings. The highest ratings would probably be overkill, especially at higher altitudes (seeing as how our 109K doesn't have its highest rating, either); there's no reason to jump from extreme to extreme.

 

The good news is that ED has, as you mentioned, several historically-common WEP ratings for the P-51D to work with, giving a number of options for picking a good match, and IIRC Yo-Yo did allow for the possibility that such might be incorporated into the sim at some point.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Solty

[Echo38]

For 44-1 fuel you just have to change engine settings and no additonal work and just make a script to choose between different fuel types.

 

I don't think it's quite that easy, but, yes, there's no doubt that adjusting the P-51's governor(s) and modelling the preferred fuel type would be less work than creating a G-6 (or whatever model in between G-6 and K-4 is best suited to face a factory-boosted P-51D).

 

only the allowed by USAAF 75'hg from aprill 1944. So it is not the highest boost, and it is well documented.

 

Even 75" might be overkill; 72" might be enough to do it. Hard to say. Did they ever fix the P-51's speed being ~30MPH too low for its WEP rating, at low alt? If so, then only a small increase in WEP rating might give the P-51 enough of a speed advantage (along with somewhat reducing the disadvantages in climb & turn) to be a reasonably good match for a 109K.

 

Again, hard to tell. But it is imperative that care be taken to avoid reversing the disparity between the two fighters by dramatically raising the P-51's WEP rating. I don't want a P-51 that outclasses the 109, any more than I want the 109 to outclass the P-51 (and neither should anyone else who cares about this sim). There's enough variation between historical configurations to find a good match, even if the models & production blocks are set in stone.

 

there is a way to simulate G6 with K4, just remove MW50 and let it be at standard ata level of 1.45 and not a 1.8 (K4 is heavier but with MW50 tank removed or at least empty that weight would go down and K4 is more clean aerodynamically so that makes up for the weight).

 

Hmm; interesting idea. Added weight and reduced drag don't quite balance each other out, though. Sounds like it'd end up faster than it should be, and with worse climb & turn than it should have. Weight can be reduced by taking a very light fuel load, but I wonder if there's some way for us to add a bit more drag to our K-4? Dropping a bit of flap would mess up the lift ...

Edited November 19, 2015 by Echo38

[Solty]

Just make a comparisson between P51 75'hg and 109K4 with 1.8 ata and you will see:

P51D 75'hg

slightly faster

better diver

better high speed control

 

Bf109K4 1.8ata

better climber

better turner

better control at low speed

 

I see it is very well balanced in that regard.

[Echo38]

That sounds about right.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Echo38

[Kurfürst]

I would love to see P-51B vs Bf109G6 in the future though, so both planes can be added, and they are much better for each other :P

 

I wonder why someone wants a G-6 from early 1943, when the P-51D wasn't available until about July 1944 (three months after the MW boost G-5/AS with near identical performance to our K-4 btw), same month the MW boosted G-14 appeared and just the same 3 months before 109K went on operations.

 

IOWs, a plane that met the P-51D on a regular basis and came three entire months later, just like the P-51D itself came after the G-5/AS(M), yeah, that so grossly unfair, yet stomping G-6s from 15 months earlier isn't. If you ask for the four gunned, razorback, basic boost P-51B I would get it. These things coincided and fought G-6s in the decisive first months of 1944. But yeah, Mustang Stomping Fest Fantasies and Allied Über Boost is a re-occurring theme from Allied pilots on all combat sim forums in my experience.

 

Speaking of P-51Ds and Normandy. How many of those were above Normandy, hmm? How many Fighter Groups in England were equipped with P-51Ds in June 1944? Wiki says (I know...) even by V-E day, half the Mustangs in Europe were still B/C versions.

[Echo38]

I wonder why someone wants a G-6 from early 1943

 

In addition to the G-6 being the type of 109 most likely to be encountered by a P-51D pilot, historically, I presume it also would be a closer competitive match for our lowest-boost P-51D than our mid/high-end K-4 is. If you think there's a better such match, I'm listening.

 

Perhaps, as I suggested earlier, one of the models/blocks between G-6 and K would be more appropriate? Which of them do you believe to be the most even match for a factory-boost P-51D? That is, being neither clearly superior nor inferior in combat?

 

Any 109 which is--at multiplayer combat altitudes--significantly slower than the P-51D, but turns & climbs significantly better, should be a fairly good match. What commonly-used 109 model do you think best fits that description? Bear in mind that the disadvantage(s) should be similar in magnitude to the advantages. Being 2% faster doesn't make up for having 15% worse sustained turn, for example.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Echo38

[Crumpp]

That can't be right. There were somewhere around 8000 P-51Ds compared to, what, 2500 109Ks?

 

I think it is right or at least very close. Look at the size of the forces and you will see it.

 

People look at the raw production numbers and get the wrong impression because they do not have an idea of the relative size of the forces. They see the large numbers of Allied production vs the smaller numbers of Luftwaffe production as the basis of comparison. That produces a skewed picture.

 

You do not need many aircraft to have a significant impact on the operational percentage when the force is small.

 

The United States States Army Air Forces was able to send more aircraft on a single mission than the entire Luftwaffe Dayfighter Force on all Fronts.

 

 

If we look at the numbers of P51's on hand in September 1944 vs the total USAAF fighter Force:

 

 

2993 P-51's / 16183 = 18.5% of the USAAF fighters are P-51's. Now I am sure not all of those are P-51D's but it is not significant to the fact it makes up about the same percentage of the force.

 

Now let's look at the Luftwaffe dayfighter force size in September of 1944:

 

 

1610 Fighters * .185 = 297 Bf-109K4/Bf-109G10's

 

That is not a whole lot of airframes required to be a significant contributor to the force considering the much smaller scale of the Luftwaffe.

 

Considering the fact the Bf-109G10 is an older airframe upgraded to Bf-109K4 standards much like the Spitfire MkV's were upgraded to Spitfire Mk IX's....

 

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2558472&postcount=848

 

It does not appear to me that the Bf-109K was insignificant or even rare in late 1944. No more so than encountering the latest version of the P-51D complete with tail warning radar.

[Crumpp]

Solty says:

And the only thing that would make it a bit more fair

 

Why don't you learn to fly the other modules and you won't be so worried about them.

 

Anytime you want to fly a Dora or Bf-109K4 I would be happy to do some mock combats in the P51 to help you out.

[Solty]

I wonder why someone wants a G-6 from early 1943, when the P-51D wasn't available until about July 1944

Please re-read what you have quoted. P-51B=/=P-51D:doh:

Edited November 19, 2015 by Solty

[MiloMorai]

Table 88- AIRPLANES ON HAND IN THEATERS VS GERMANY, BY TYPE AND PRINCIPAL MODEL: JUN 1942 TO AUG 1945 is a better source.

 

P-51

1616/4844 (1st line) x 100 = 33.6%.

 

Considering the fact the Bf-109G10 is an older airframe upgraded to Bf-109K4 standards

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The G-10s were new production.

 

There was only 15 K-4s and no G-10s built in Sept 1944. There was 1649 G-5s, G-6s and G-14s built in Sept 1944 tho. Fw190 production was 1391.

 

15/(15+1649+1391) x 100 = 0.49% of production.

 

K-4s

15/1610 x 100 = 0.93% in Sept 1944

 

The 314 number Kurfurst posted was for Jan 1945. Considering the serviceability rate of Luftwaffe fighters at that time, maybe 200 were operationally ready.

[Echo38]

The 314 number Kurfurst posted was for Jan 1945. Considering the serviceability rate of Luftwaffe fighters at that time, maybe 200 were operationally ready.

 

Mm, about that--after my haphazard guess of "~2500 109Ks" in that post of mine, I spent ~20 minutes searching for an actual figure on how many 109Ks were produced. I could find nothing, so ... I have no idea how many 109Ks were produced; "2000–2500" is a figure I've heard tossed around, but the actual number seems to be a bit murky, at best.

 

It seems clear, however, that the 109K wasn't a very common sight for the Allied pilots, at any point in the war, and the 109G would have been ubiquitous by comparison.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Echo38

[Kurfürst]

In addition to the G-6 being the type of 109 most likely to be encountered by a P-51D pilot, historically, I presume it also would be a closer competitive match for our lowest-boost P-51D than our mid/high-end K-4 is. If you think there's a better such match, I'm listening.

 

There is no easy answer to this. Historically, the P-51D was gradually introduced from June 1944 to ETO, when a lot of leftover G-6s were still around, and so were many P-38s and P-47s. The D Mustang was the brand new plane that was just getting introduced to combat, at the same time as the G-14 and G-14/AS (high alt version with roughly similar performance characteristics to the K-4, albeit a bit slower due to higher drag). G-6 production was being stopped at the time in favor of the two G-14 models, both which were a stop-gap measure and essentially, G-6s with the latest mods already in existence, the two most important being the MW 50 boost being standard and the new high altitude DB 605 AS in the altitude variant.

 

Maybe this helps:

 

 

So yup, a P-51D would most likely meet, at least in mid 1944, a G-6, the old and still most numerous 109. It might meet some of the latest modifications of the G-6, with MW-50, AS engine, or both of these, since these were also already around.

 

A G-6 pilot would, however most likely meet a P-47D or a P-51B - not a P-51D, which was just making its appearance in the first USAAF Fighter Groups. What to make of that - quite simply that G-6 and P-51D encounters were atypical at the time, because there were few of the latter around. If we want to have typical scenarios so that human players would meet the likely opponents, P-51D pilots should keep meeting G-6s, and G-6 pilots... P-47Ds or P-51Bs. This is impossible, of course, without having 51Bs in DCS, and that is very unlikely to happen.

 

The P-51D of course was produced in large numbers, and become increasingly prevelent later during 1944/45, replacing P-47s and P-38s and partly replacing the early P-51B/C, but at the same time the same happened in the LW when G-6s were also being replaced by later models. Later in 1944, a P-51 D pilot might meet a G-14, a G-14/AS, a G-10 or a K-4 (and I tend handle these latter 3 together, as they were all high altitude, methanol boosted 109s with very similar performance and engines, while the G-14 was the low-medium altitude variant) with roughly equal chance and of course it might bumble into the remaining G-6s.

 

Perhaps, as I suggested earlier, one of the models/blocks between G-6 and K would be more appropriate? Which of them do you believe to be the most even match for a factory-boost P-51D? That is, being neither clearly superior nor inferior in combat?

 

In timeline, the candidates would be the G-14 and G-14/AS, produced from about the same period and seeing wider use starting from July 1944, parallel to the P-51D.

 

I am just not sure about whether this would make more even combat. The G-14 was pretty strong at low alt, having the same 1800 HP as our low-boosted K-4, but with a propeller better for low altitude. I'd say it would climb and turn even better than our K, up to about 4-5000 meters, where most of the combat happens. So I am not sure Pony pilots would have it easier with that one.

 

G-14/AS is also an option, performance envelope is pretty much the same as the K-4, only about 20 km/h slower, but again about 100 kg lighter, and has the same power, and also good at altitude, and somewhat poorer than the G-14 at lower altitudes. Better than the K-4 in some aspects, worser in speed, but still maybe like 10 km/h slower than the D. And I doubt that Pony pilots complain about the speed of the 109K the most.

 

The headaches actually stem from the sickeningly high power to weight ratio of the 109K, but that will only get worse if you replace it with the even lighter late 109Gs.

 

Any 109 which is--at multiplayer combat altitudes--significantly slower than the P-51D, but turns & climbs significantly better, should be a fairly good match. What commonly-used 109 model do you think best fits that description? Bear in mind that the disadvantage(s) should be similar in magnitude to the advantages. Being 2% faster doesn't make up for having 15% worse sustained turn, for example.

 

If you have some kind of balance like this in your mind (slower, but better turner and climber 109 than the 51), you probably narrow it down to the G-14. BUT. Even the G-14 does around 570 kph on the deck, which I believe is pretty close to the DCS 51D... so then we are pretty much at what you wrote, a maybe 1% slower 109 - that climbs and turns even better than our K-4, the only damning feature being that it runs out of steam quickly above 5000 meters where the Pony will be superior. But 5000+ meters is where most combat sim pilots rarely venture.

 

The only 109 that was around and significantly slower than the P-51D was the G-6, but like I said that encounter was increasingly atypical since the G-6 was just phased out of production when the P-51D entered operations.

 

Like I said many times earlier, I just don't get the fetish of getting a late G series instead of the K-4. IMO having a G-14 instead of the K-4 would be even uglier for you, Pony pilots, without the attraction of having to fly the penultimate development of the 109 for us, 109 pilots, with all the shiny cocpit and looks, and not just anoooother Gustav cocpit.

 

The K-4 is a bit overhyped in sims and boards, just like the Ta 152H. The thing was just a refined 109 with a high altitude engine slapped into it, but since there were many interim types introduced before it, its not all that different from those in the performance aspect. Unless we speak of the later 2000 HP variants (which again wasn't K-exclusive, the G-14/AS and G-10 also had this rating), the only difference is the stock MK 108 and that its a little bit faster because of its more streamlined airframe.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Kurfürst

[Crumpp]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The G-10s were new production.

 

:music_whistling:

 

G-10 Series

The Messerschmitt Bf 109G-10 series was unusual in that it consisted of new and remanufactured airframes of earlier model Gs equipped with the more powerful Daimler Benz DB 605D series engine. As a result, there was little standardization beyond the common use of the Erla-Haube (or "Galland Hood") improved vision canopy. Even so, the G-10 proved to be the fastest G model.

 

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/MuseumExhibits/FactSheets/Display/tabid/509/Article/196264/messerschmitt-bf-109g-10.aspx

 

Yes, whatever new air-frames were on the production line when the conversion's began became Bf-109G10's.

[NineLine]

Lets not turn this into another production debate.

 

DCS P-51D vs DCS 109K-4

 

That is the gist of the topic.

[Echo38]

If you have some kind of balance like this in your mind (slower, but better turner and climber 109 than the 51), you probably narrow it down to the G-14.

 

I can't see any other way that the two aircraft could be reasonably well-balanced. Unless you take an extreme example, such as a super-high-boosted P-51, running a very light fuel load, versus a low-boosted 109 carrying gunpods, the 109 will always turn & climb & accelerate better, at normal multiplayer dogfighting altitudes. Thus, the only way I can see to prevent the match from being completely being one-sided, is to pick an example of a P-51 which is faster. Unless you go to extreme & unusual configurations, you aren't gonna get a P-51 that turns or climbs better, at least not at "normal" altitudes.

 

For this reason, as far as I can tell, the only way (without historically-rare conditions, as mentioned in previous paragraph) to get a P-51D to be an ~even match for the 109 is to pick models/blocks/configurations in which the P-51 is faster, because at least then it has something. If the 109K is about the same speed, or even better (as is apparently the case now, yes?), and also has clear advantages in turn & climb, then it isn't an even match by any stretch. Things like diving ability & low stick forces & reliable firepower are nice, but they don't make up for having worse climb, worse turn, and a lower top speed. The latter's pretty much a death sentence for the P-51, unless the 109 pilot is green; the P-51 can't out-maneuver and can't get away, and so is clearly not a good match for our K-4.

 

Even the G-14 does around 570 kph on the deck, which I believe is pretty close to the DCS 51D... so then we are pretty much at what you wrote, a maybe 1% slower 109 - that climbs and turns even better than our K-4, the only damning feature being that it runs out of steam quickly above 5000 meters where the Pony will be superior.

 

The only 109 that was around and significantly slower than the P-51D was the G-6, but like I said that encounter was increasingly atypical since the G-6 was just phased out of production when the P-51D entered operations.

 

If what you say is true, then I can see no better choices than the two I've presented; either our lowest-WEP-rating P-51D needs to be matched with a 109G-6 (which is still a historical match that occurred more frequently than the current matchup), or else the P-51D needs to have one of the higher WEP ratings that were authorized toward the end of the war, to become closer in performance & fighting ability to our 109K. (This would also be a historical match, though perhaps not as common as P-51D vs. 109G-6, due to the relative rarity of pristine K-4s.)

 

The only option other than those two, unless I'm overlooking something, is to remain with the current situation, of a factory-boosted P-51D being outclassed in maneuverability, and not possessing a speed advantage to balance it out, and thus being a poor match for our 109K-4 (which is, unlike our P-51D, running a mid-high boost rather than the lowest). That situation is neither balanced nor historically representative, since the real P-51Ds commonly ran at higher boost ratings (with or without the higher-grade fuel) than the one we have in the sim, and so were a better match for the 109K, on average (despite still being inferior in turn & climb at most altitudes).

Edited November 19, 2015 by Echo38

[Crumpp]

Mm, about that--after my haphazard guess of "~2500 109Ks" in that post of mine, I spent ~20 minutes searching for an actual figure on how many 109Ks were produced. I could find nothing, so ... I have no idea how many 109Ks were produced; "2000–2500" is a figure I've heard tossed around, but the actual number seems to be a bit murky, at best.

 

It seems clear, however, that the 109K wasn't a very common sight for the Allied pilots, at any point in the war, and the 109G would have been ubiquitous by comparison.

 

That should read:

 

It seems clear, however, that any German fighter wasn't a very common sight for the Allied pilots,

[Crumpp]

since the real P-51Ds commonly ran at higher boost ratings (with or without the higher-grade fuel) than the one we have in the sim, and so were a better match for the 109K, in general (despite still being inferior in turn & climb at our combat altitudes).

 

The P-51D we have now represents the 9th USAAF.

 

That is the Red Tails and the tactical support for the Normandy beachheads as well as the Allied ground forces. All the fighter sweeps targeting a specific area of the tactical battlespace was the 9th USAAF job.

 

They NEVER used 100/150 grade fuel during the war. That is the one that should be down on the deck dropping bombs, doing fighter sweeps, or escorting medium bombers.

 

I would like to see a 8th USAAF variant using 100/150 grade at 72" when we get a heavy bombers and can recreate strategic bombing missions.

 

I do and end up flying the Luftwaffe fighters more than I would like simply because the P-51 Mustang players usually have greater numbers so to balance, I switch.

 

I get shot down no matter what airplane I fly. :smilewink:

[Echo38]

They NEVER used 100/150 grade fuel during the war.

 

Remember, certain "middle of the road" ratings were authorized even for 100/130. Not the highest, but still a few inches higher than the factory setting. Having the higher-grade fuel made the engines run smoother & last longer at the higher pressures, but someone up high in command made the (correct) decision that, in the absence of the 100/150, wearing engines out a bit faster--and even raising the risk of engine failure a bit--was worth the gain of having a few more inches of power in an emergency. That is, after all, the point of WEP in the first place. : )

 

This is why I don't understand how some people fight so hard against these officially-authorized, commonly-used, middle-of-the-road WEP ratings being made available to the P-51D, when the opponent aircraft also has a mid-range boost already, and is not in danger of being outclassed by the incorporation of the same on the other side. In this case, it's better for competitive balance, and it doesn't harm historical accuracy a bit.

 

(I do understand how some of the highest ratings make people uneasy; as I mentioned before, I myself don't much care for the "arms race to helicopters," either, and believe that WEP ratings should only be raised for the "factory underdogs" to better match "factory overdogs," and only to WEP ratings which are historical, of course.)

Edited November 19, 2015 by Echo38

[Yo-Yo]

Exactly Echo. And the only thing that would make it a bit more fair in this regard is to give P-51D it's 44-1 fuel and 75'hg because it is very well documented and follows the rule of creating simulation based on real life data. I hope that this "feature" will be available sooner than later to us, especially with 25lbs Spitfire coming down the way. Sith said some time ago that it is planned, I just wish we could have it now :P. But this change will stop this thread and claims that K4 is the P51 killer, because they will be fighting on equal terms.

 

You missed the main fact that 75" does nothing at 6-8 km altitude the most dogfights were at. As well as MW-50 that adds low altitude performance.

If you want 75" for the low alt dogfights sandbox in MP - say it directly... :)

[MiloMorai]

The P-51D we have now represents the 9th USAAF.

 

That is the Red Tails and the tactical support for the Normandy beachheads as well as the Allied ground forces. All the fighter sweeps targeting a specific area of the tactical battlespace was the 9th USAAF job.

 

So the 9th AF must have been based in GB because it is along way from Italy to the Normandy beaches.

 

There was 2 FGs equipped with P-51s in the 9th AF, the 354th and 363rd.

[Crumpp]

Yo-Yo says:

You missed the main fact that 75" does nothing at 6-8 km altitude

 

As well as the fact 75" was never used on any operational P-51 in the USAAF.

 

Boy, I can remember when this article said 100/150 grade was the THE fuel from 1943 on....

 

Looks like it got clean up and all the supply side driven and strategic reserve information used to drive the wrong conclusion has been clean up some.

 

We are getting there on the true story, LOL.

 

In late Winter of 1943-44 the Allied Expeditionary Air Force (A.E.A.F.) decided, pending further trials, not to employ 150 Grade Fuel for Overlord due to spark plug issues, however, it was intended that 150 Grade would be used when proved satisfactory. 21

 

In July of 1944, 72"inHg was the limitation for the 8th USAAF fighters conducting strategic bombing escort.

 

 

The WER engine limitation for the P-51 continued to be 72" Hg. 32

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/78thfg-eng-rep-dec44.jpg

 

Given the timeframe of the Luftwaffe aircraft as late 1944....

 

It is a fact the P-51's of the 8th USAAF were using 100/150 grade at 72"inHg.

 

Does DCS model spark plug fouling?

[Echo38]

If you want 75" for the low alt dogfights sandbox in MP - say it directly...

 

Well, that is the altitude where the P-51 suffers the most. : )

 

Dearest Yo-Yo, 72" MAP wouldn't make the P-51 a better dogfighter than the 109K, would it? It'd just help to narrow the gap between the two fighters' general combat capability. (Surely even 75" wouldn't allow the P-51D to match the 109K in climb or turn, much less 72"; am I right?)

 

Please, and puppy eyes, 72" WEP? I should very much like a close match between equals.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Echo38

[MiloMorai]

RAF Mustang IVs used 25lb boost.

 

Mustang IV = P-51D